3/11: Pink Flu Day

lark sparrow

Literotica Guru
Joined
Oct 11, 2002
Posts
1,715
3/11:

Pink Flu Day: March 11th, 2004

"If being gay means I'm sick, then I'm calling in gay
at work. 'Hello, can't come in today, still gay.'"
Robin Tyler, co-chair of www.DontAmend.com

On Thursday, March 11th, 2004... STAY HOME from work!

Join the National Pink Flu and send a message to
America that you or your friends or family will not be
relegated to second class status.

The Massachusetts legislature will reconvene on
Thursday, March 11th to once again tackle the issue of
whether or not gay and lesbian Americans have the
right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Meanwhile, San Francisco is protesting through non-gay
ally, Mayor Gavin Newsom, who is defying California
discrimination law by issuing marriage licenses to
same-sex couples. The religious "wrong" are calling
those licenses and the people receiving them
"worthless." On March 11th, gay and lesbian Americans
and their non-gay allies all over the country are
going to stay home from work as a show of protest and
as a signal that we will no longer tolerate treating
LGBT people as second class citizens. "We want to show
our fellow Americans, our state law makers, and
President Bush that the Federal Marriage Amendment
would be a mistake and a further insult to millions of
gay and lesbian people in this country who want simply
to be treated fairly," said David Natale, organizer of
the event.

Gay and lesbians are a vital part of the functioning
of America and if the narrow minded and bigoted
politicians wish to relegate us as a class of people
and further restrict our rights, than we have the
right to fight back and to show America just exactly
who they are sending to the back of the bus. Imagine
if flight attendants, waiters and waitresses,
entertainers, nurses and doctors, public
transportation workers, office and government workers,
and the likes all over America stayed home for one day
as a way to show America who we are and as a way of
saying "We, too, have a dream and we will no longer be
denied equality!"

On March 11th, 2004... STAY HOME from work!

[and for another POV……]

Dear Friends - As you may have read the GLBT workforce
are trying to organize a "Pink Flu" Day for 3/11/04.
The idea is to show our numbers and the foolishness of
calling our sexuality a "disease" by being absent from
work that day. Fortunately, our co. doesn't consider
us sick or second-class citizens. But many of our
friends, relatives and neighbors aren't as lucky. Many
can not afford to lose the $ of 1 day of work. Others
can not risk their managers figuring they are GLBT
and, therefore, expendable. And we don't want to see
anyone lose their jobs.

I am, therefore, suggesting that we ask our local
communities (including our straight allies) to have a
"no purchase" day on 3/11/04. You would go to work as
usual (and may have to take public transit- but just
to get too and from work). But you don't buy ANYTHING.
Do not buy from vending machines, stores, gas
stations, newspaper boxes, post offices, restaurants,
sidewalk vendors, or private sales (like Avon, Mary
Kay, Tupperware, etc.). Do not attend or use any
artistic events or places or sporting events or
places. Take the night off from the gym - even though
you have paid your fee for the month. You may consider
phone calls and e-mails and e-commerce off limits (if
you want to take it that far). You don't think a 10
per cent drop in commerce would affect our economy? In
1 day? Well- I think Mr. Greenspan would think so!

This is grassroots organizing of a widespread boycott
to affect the economy - Not sponsored by any group .
Please forward this to everyone you know. .

And we can do it if we try!
 
.

its actually a kinda funny idea but i wont do it. i dont need people to accept me or my actions. i am my own person and if other dont like the way i am they can get over it. i dont tell them not to kiss their straigt partner in public they can just deal with me kissing a man in public.
 
Not going to classes in order to protest...it would be nice to not go, but that's not going to work for me. However, after reading that second part, I can not buy anything on that day. I normally use the vending machines in my dorm a lot, so I won't use them then. That would work a lot better for me personally.
 
Ok, let me see if I get this. You want me to temporarily deny myself employment AND remove myself from the economy otherwise by boycotting everything and everyone because I'm not heterosexual? And how is that supposed to show that I'm NOT a second class citizen? :confused: Seems kinda backwards to me.
 
Zergplex Says

I'll support the not buying section of it, I'm too poor to be able to take a day off from work.

-Zergplex
 
thats my birthday !!! yeaaaaah even more insentive to stay home "sick" hehehe !!!! That it, I'm doing it anyway :) !
 
Bitchslapper said:
Ok, let me see if I get this. You want me to temporarily deny myself employment AND remove myself from the economy otherwise by boycotting everything and everyone because I'm not heterosexual? And how is that supposed to show that I'm NOT a second class citizen? :confused: Seems kinda backwards to me.

It shows you are not a second class citizen by establishing that your activity has as significant an effect on the economy as anyone elses. You have to remember that we live in a capitalistic economy, therefore from the most base and practical level our value is defined by our ability to contribute to that structure. And such a drop in activity over the course of one day would have a significant effect on the charts. And while it would not have any long term effects on the economy (since in many cases we would go out and buy what tommorow what we were going to buy today) it does establish our power to effect the economy, and say it doesn't work and someone starts a more significant economic boycot. Such as making a point to purchase imported goods whenever possibly. If gay people all made a point to never buy American it would have a major effect on the economy. Basically the boycott is a scare tactic saying "Hey assholes, we are perfectly willing to screw up your economy if you are willing to screw up our lives, and we have the power to do it inside the system, so stop treating us like we are less worthy of existing than everyone else".
 
Cigan said:
It shows you are not a second class citizen by establishing that your activity has as significant an effect on the economy as anyone elses. You have to remember that we live in a capitalistic economy, therefore from the most base and practical level our value is defined by our ability to contribute to that structure. And such a drop in activity over the course of one day would have a significant effect on the charts. And while it would not have any long term effects on the economy (since in many cases we would go out and buy what tommorow what we were going to buy today) it does establish our power to effect the economy, and say it doesn't work and someone starts a more significant economic boycot. Such as making a point to purchase imported goods whenever possibly. If gay people all made a point to never buy American it would have a major effect on the economy. Basically the boycott is a scare tactic saying "Hey assholes, we are perfectly willing to screw up your economy if you are willing to screw up our lives, and we have the power to do it inside the system, so stop treating us like we are less worthy of existing than everyone else".

Orrr it just makes me feel like even more of a second-class citizen by limiting myself. What's next, Straight and Gay/Bi water fountains?

In any case, I don't like scare tactics anyway.
 
lol It's not an order from The Pope... do what you will. I am simply doing my part in passing the word so the effort may be known, particularly to those to whom it appeals.

I don't see it as a scare tactic, but I do see it as a wake up call - not that those who believe in equal rights are willing to fuck up the economy, but to demonstrate the reality that we do exist and truly are an integral part of society. That would seem a given, but its not. I would imagine it also includes a feeling of solidarity for a great many people.

Invisibility is viable choice as well.
 
Last edited:
Bitchslapper said:
Ok, let me see if I get this. You want me to temporarily deny myself employment AND remove myself from the economy otherwise by boycotting everything and everyone because I'm not heterosexual? And how is that supposed to show that I'm NOT a second class citizen? :confused: Seems kinda backwards to me.


Gandhi didn't think so.
Martin Luther King didn't think so.
Nelson Mandela didn't think so.

But I suppose you know better.
 
Bitchslapper said:
Orrr it just makes me feel like even more of a second-class citizen by limiting myself. What's next, Straight and Gay/Bi water fountains?

In any case, I don't like scare tactics anyway.

If you don't like the technique that's fine. Certainly no one is putting a gun to your head and trying to force you to take part in this protest. But making a conscious choice to use your power as a consumer towards a specific end does not make you a second class citizen. Are people who go on hunger strikes for environmental reasons second class citizens? Are people who refuse to eat meat or dairy because of the way the meat and dairy industries are run in America second class citizens? Certainly not. I personally would not do either of these things, but I have the choice to. By being unwilling to take part in a strike like this just because it inconveniences you leaves you at the whim of the lawmakers, by not taking an active part in your political influence (both the vote of the ballot, and the vote of your purchasing power) you risk sacrificing any and all rights you would otherwise have. Think long and hard before you dismiss an activity like what is posed here, there are countried where even talking about something like this would result in execution, now that is second class citizenship.
 
Last edited:
Queersetti said:
Gandhi didn't think so.
Martin Luther King didn't think so.
Nelson Mandela didn't think so.

But I suppose you know better.


Which Gandhi?

In any case, I don't see how it's analogous. Those people were well-known and they did different things (from this and from each other) so aside from the aspect of comparing apples to oranges, thier efforts were much more effective due to thier visibility. I just don't think it makes much sense to boycott a free market economy to affect change in the government. I would prefer to boycott the government. Don't buy stamps, don't pay taxes, run through toll booths without paying, that sort of thing. Two of those things are actually illegal, so it falls into the category of civil disobedience and THEN it makes sense to me to compare yourself to MLK or Nelson Mandela. But either way, what gave you the idea I know better? Did I say that? No. Did I even imply that? No. I merel expressed my opinion. If you disagree that's fine, but that's no reason to assume I'm the enemy because I refuse to be herderd by one group rather than another. A true nonconformist is not someone who follows a smaller group rather than a larger one.

And Cigan, your attempt to shame me into compliance has failed. You make it sound as though I'm a second-class citizen if I DON'T do this. It's almost like saying, if you don't do this you're a pawn of the government, so do what I say! Or that if I'm not for you, I'm against you. Well, how does that make you any better than the Conservatives that would take your rights away (or keep them away)?

In any case, comparing this issue to environmental causes or vegetarianism is faulty, because it's not the same. Do you also think that there's no difference between racism and sexism?
 
Bitchslapper said:

And Cigan, your attempt to shame me into compliance has failed. You make it sound as though I'm a second-class citizen if I DON'T do this. It's almost like saying, if you don't do this you're a pawn of the government, so do what I say! Or that if I'm not for you, I'm against you. Well, how does that make you any better than the Conservatives that would take your rights away (or keep them away)?

In any case, comparing this issue to environmental causes or vegetarianism is faulty, because it's not the same. Do you also think that there's no difference between racism and sexism?

As usual you twist oh so exquisitely the words of those who post. I did not say you had to take part. I posted the things I did with the beginning saying it was fine if you didn't want to take part. But your earlier posts made it seem like it was a completely stupid and pointless venture because it made you feel like a second class citizen to take part in it. Your posts were delving into condecending the boycott of economic activity. If you do not want to take part in this because you do not feel it would be effective that is one thing, but the way you put it made it seem like we were demeaning ourselves by doing so, and my point is that it can indeed be effective, and you should not dismiss those who take such actions so easily. And as to your comments about sexism and vegitarianism you again misconstrue my statements. Of course there are differences, if there were not differences they would be the same things, with the same titles. However, just because there are differences does not mean there are not similarities. As a result of the drive against the meat industry if you live in even a remotely decent city you can get free range just about anything. Did this exist 20 years ago, yes, but not in the abundance that it does now, and why? Because people decided they weren't going to eat meat from animals that were all hyped up on roids, and who had lived miserable lives. This is by no means the same situation, but the similar tactics have been used in the past and have accomplished at least some element of their goal. My point is not that you should necesserily go out and boycott every injustice, or even this one, or any one for that matter. But if you do not then you have no right to complain when things do not change. And as far as your comparisons to civil disobedience. After your comments about comparing apples to oranges you could have come up with some examples of "civil disobedience" which actually follow historical precident. Civil disobedience generally involves breaking the law which the activist feels is unjust. In some cases other laws are broken, but in most cases that is not so. Though there is some validity to your example to be sure. An excellent example of how things can be different with some similarities and still apply to each other.
 
Bitchslapper said:
Which Gandhi?

In any case, I don't see how it's analogous. Those people were well-known and they did different things (from this and from each other) so aside from the aspect of comparing apples to oranges, thier efforts were much more effective due to thier visibility. I just don't think it makes much sense to boycott a free market economy to affect change in the government. I would prefer to boycott the government. Don't buy stamps, don't pay taxes, run through toll booths without paying, that sort of thing. Two of those things are actually illegal, so it falls into the category of civil disobedience and THEN it makes sense to me to compare yourself to MLK or Nelson Mandela. But either way, what gave you the idea I know better? Did I say that? No. Did I even imply that? No. I merel expressed my opinion. If you disagree that's fine, but that's no reason to assume I'm the enemy because I refuse to be herderd by one group rather than another. A true nonconformist is not someone who follows a smaller group rather than a larger one.

And Cigan, your attempt to shame me into compliance has failed. You make it sound as though I'm a second-class citizen if I DON'T do this. It's almost like saying, if you don't do this you're a pawn of the government, so do what I say! Or that if I'm not for you, I'm against you. Well, how does that make you any better than the Conservatives that would take your rights away (or keep them away)?

In any case, comparing this issue to environmental causes or vegetarianism is faulty, because it's not the same. Do you also think that there's no difference between racism and sexism?


Obviously, I was referred to Mohandas Gandhi. If you are under the impression that Martin Luther King and Nelson mandela were famous before they became activists for their causes, I would suggest that you spend a little more time learning history, and a little less spouting your juvenile nihilism on Lit.
 
Ooooh, I rather like the idea! But that's a Thursday, and they would have a really hard time replacing me at work that day. Why couldn't it be a Monday or a Friday? I could do it those days! (I may anyway.)

Actually, if all the gay people in my company didn't go to work, the office would almost shut down. One of the VPs is gay, and so is one of the supervisors. Plus a whole bunch of employees, including some in high-profile positions (like mine).
 
Queersetti said:
Obviously, I was referred to Mohandas Gandhi. If you are under the impression that Martin Luther King and Nelson mandela were famous before they became activists for their causes, I would suggest that you spend a little more time learning history, and a little less spouting your juvenile nihilism on Lit.

"Juvenile nihilism"? You don't even know me. If you did, you'd know better. Just because I care about different things than you does not make me a nihilist.

I'd like to see one person, just one, discuss something with me in a calm, rational manner without resorting to insults. Is anyone here even capable of that? Or am I the latest Witch Hunt victim?

I'd also like to know why people think they are such experts of human nature that they can judge my character based on a few posts regarding polarized topics.
 
Etoile said:
Actually, if all the gay people in my company didn't go to work, the office would almost shut down. One of the VPs is gay, and so is one of the supervisors. Plus a whole bunch of employees, including some in high-profile positions (like mine).

Glad to hear it. Are you taking the day off? I hope so. I want you to. I want to see what happens that day. I kind of doubt the country will grind to a halt, but stranger things have happened.
 
Bitchslapper said:
"Juvenile nihilism"? You don't even know me. If you did, you'd know better. Just because I care about different things than you does not make me a nihilist.

I'd like to see one person, just one, discuss something with me in a calm, rational manner without resorting to insults. Is anyone here even capable of that? Or am I the latest Witch Hunt victim?

I'd also like to know why people think they are such experts of human nature that they can judge my character based on a few posts regarding polarized topics.


I have seen little evidence that are interested in rational discussion.

My impression of you is that you post primarily because you enjoy expressing your smug derision of others.

I would be more than happy to see you prove me wrong.
 
Queersetti said:
I have seen little evidence that are interested in rational discussion.

My impression of you is that you post primarily because you enjoy expressing your smug derision of others.

I would be more than happy to see you prove me wrong.

If you have seen little evidence, then you haven't read many of my posts. When I want discuss an issue I am usually ignored. Anything negative I post is jumped on like the last bead necklace at Mardi Gras. So it seems that people only notice that I've said anything if someone gets upset.

First impressions are usually wrong. That's why I try not to let them sink in. What I find ironic is you say I enjoy expressing smug derision of others, yet saying that you deride and insult me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems contradictory to me.

I highly doubt that last statement is true. You seem quite happy to look down on me because I don't agree with you on a few issues. I think you'll go on believing I'm an asshole based on a few posts here and there that everyone who was actually involved has let pass.
 
Bitchslapper said:
If you have seen little evidence, then you haven't read many of my posts. When I want discuss an issue I am usually ignored. Anything negative I post is jumped on like the last bead necklace at Mardi Gras. So it seems that people only notice that I've said anything if someone gets upset.

First impressions are usually wrong. That's why I try not to let them sink in. What I find ironic is you say I enjoy expressing smug derision of others, yet saying that you deride and insult me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems contradictory to me.

I highly doubt that last statement is true. You seem quite happy to look down on me because I don't agree with you on a few issues. I think you'll go on believing I'm an asshole based on a few posts here and there that everyone who was actually involved has let pass.


I have probably read at least 99% of every post ever made to this board.

I have held my tongue about what I perceive as your antagonistic attitude on many occasions. You have been, in my opinion, the most consistently negative and insulting poster here. You seem to go out of your way to try to deflate other posters.

You can doubt my sincerity if you wish. Nonetheless, I am hoping that in the future, we will see more productive discussion and less of what strikes me as argument for argument's sake.
 
What strikes me as odd is you accuse me of instigating the "argument for argument's sake" but statistically speaking more often than not I am engaged in argument by someone else. Like this:

1. Random Lit Person starts thread

2. I post my opinion

3. Either the thread orginator or some other person takes offense at this and proceeds to deconstruct everything I say as though we were in a high school debate club

4. I give up and tell the person I'm done and proceed to add them to my ignore list, and/or apologize to the person for offending them, and/or I tell them I'm the sexist, racist, age-ist, Libservative Republicrat asshole they think I am and the storm passes

So in the spirit of reconciliation, yes I admit I would like to see all peoples who are even slightly different from me (which includes gays, straights, Blacks, Whites, Arabs, Native Americans [even though I'm part Cherokee, go figure], East Indians, Asians, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Pagans, Athiests, Conceptual Skeptics, Philosophers in general, Scientists, All Americans, Foreign People, cats, dogs, horses and all other inferior species and anyone else I may have forgotten) to be wiped from the face of the Earth instantly by the hand of God so I can climb to the top of the tallest mountain in the world and shout "I'M KING OF THE WORLD!!!" because I am the last person on Earth and no one would oppose my rule. And nothing would please me more than to see this boycott fail (which is odd, because as an amatuer subversive, you'd think I'd be in favor of it, but then why does it fall on me to make sense when there are plenty of other people here that make contradictory statements every day with impunity?).



PS Yes, this post is antagonistic, but so has every single thing you have ever said to me.

THE END

Finito

Fin

"Until next time, enjoy our Wild America!"
 
Bitchslapper said:
Glad to hear it. Are you taking the day off? I hope so. I want you to. I want to see what happens that day. I kind of doubt the country will grind to a halt, but stranger things have happened.
Well, I'd like to, but I'm not sure. I may discuss it with my girlfriend and supervisor at work to see what they think. (My supervisor's gay too, so for all I know she'll join in.)
 
I wish I could take off work that day, unfortunately Thursday is a day I can't miss *grumbles* I'll just have to stray from my normal visit to Jamba Juice for a lunch smoothie and brown bag it instead lol
 
I've been wondering, how does it make me a nihilist to think that this isn't doing enough? Wouldn't that mean just the opposite?

On a side note, I'd also like to know why only gay people get the day off. Seems kind of unfair and hypocritical to me.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top